Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Groin guru]

I mean, GG has a point. Change a few words around in War and Peace and you have The Adventures of Captain Underpants. They're both books after all, just as AOC and Owens are female humans. Surprised you didn't see that, mate.

When in doubt go with the gender card...

Predictable

 

[Groin guru]

Owens is someone who thought Hitler would have been fine if he didn't expand his policies beyond Germany, they are the same?

AOC's problem is that she is young and naive in relation to macro economics. When I was her age, or probably a bit younger, I was an idealistic socialist as well. I don't have an issue with people thinking Socialism has merit because in theory it makes sense, it just doesn't work in practice because it doesn't matter how noble the people are who fought for these principles are, when the State has too much power and it is adopting an authoritarian power shift, it is extremely vulnerable to ushering in someone who is corrupt who proceeds to hoard the wealth for themselves and their cronies and then undertake an authoritarian stance to keep power. The Estates aren't burned to the ground and the workers have never had a better quality of life under Socialism, so you have to ask where did all the wealth go? It is a redistribution of wealth, from the people who generated the wealth to the people who took the wealth by force.

That doesn't mean a mixed economy system can't have greater social policies, we are an example of how it can work and there is a lot we can do better, our taxation law makes it too easy to avoid paying tax, ATO released the data on our top corporations at the end of 2017 and 732 companies who had amassed more than $500 billion in revenue paid no tax whatsoever.

Capitalism always lives in the present, it has no regard for the future, not in any way shape or form. It is a great system to generate wealth but we need to heavily regulate it as most corporations are run by CEOs who psychologically do not stray too far from psychopaths and they can't be trusted with what is best for our society, given the means, they will send us all to Hell for the right price.

AOC is naive to believe you can squeeze more money from the wealthy, outside of the resource sector many of them can just leave. The top 10% already pay a disproportionate amount of income taxation, the top 10% fund about 90% of our income tax revenue. You will get more out of rich people if you give them tax incentives to invest money where the government would otherwise have invested the money if they could get it out of them. The more you try to take money from the rich, the more they will attempt to avoid paying tax. Tax minimisation schemes do not generate for the economy what would greater infrastructure investment or more investment in job creating businesses. Outside of entering a war-based economy, attempting to get more out of the rich has never worked and has done more harm to the economy.

Renewable energy is something worthwhile... on an individual basis. I have solar panels on my roof, they generate electricity, didn't cost much to install and after 5 or so years have probably repaid themselves, still has about 20 years to go before they would need to be replaced... I probably wont be around when that happens. However, trying to generate enough power from solar, wind, etc is just way too expensive, it is disastrous for the wildlife, wind turbines just become big bird shredders and anything that flies over a solar farm gets incinerated. Birds aren't being shot down by a death ray from my roof so I think there is a place for intelligent use of renewable power.

However, we would reach and even exceed our greenhouse emission targets by just going nuclear, we have the largest known uranium deposits in the world and in some states/territories we can't actively search for new deposits. It is estimated we probably have Thorium reserves on par with that of India, the Dutch put a Thorium salt mine reactor online late in 2017 for research purposes, ultimately Thorium reactors can't melt down as the core is already in a molten state. If the CIA could stop killing Indian nuclear scientists then that would be great, perhaps they can finish their research on their new hybrid Thorium/Uranium reactor which would burn up basically everything in the process getting much more power out of the uranium and leaving nothing to turn into bombs or toxic waste that lasts thousands of years. We could even take all the existing waste that exists and burn it in a hybrid reactor. These also can't melt down in theory.

If someone truly wants to take a stand for the environment, they would support replacing all coal based plants with nucelar reactors, even environmentalists that have pushed for green renewable energy have started to say, it is time to give up on it and go nuclear until we can improve the science behind renewable energy.

When you were her age were you voted into congress? No. The point is she has been thrust into a position that she wasn't ready for. If you can influence policies with such little knowledge and make so many errors it's an issue. There is learning on the job...but lets be realistic. That's the same for any politician. Politics has turned into a popularity contest (social media and a plethora of talk shows have magnified that) and with AOC she's playing every card (no borders, socialism, grew up in the bronx, female, save the planet, down with the 1%) - the masses and the uneducated eat that up. As you've pointed out there are too many holes in here arguments. The problem is she has dug in now and I don't see any effort to learn. There is also no attempt be her supporters to hold her accountable so if she makes an error (which we all do) she just goes into defence mode and it turns into a gender thing

Thank christ she's the US's problem. Sadly Australia will have a similar politician soon enough when they see how successful she will become. I look forward to a time when a Trudeau or AOC run Australia

 

[Tas]

That's much better (although if calling you long winded gets you upset, I'd hate to see what an actual critique would do to you).

I am not upset, just disappointed because personal attacks are pointless on a forum. There are people who have posted significantly longer and more numerous posts in recent pages yet people only have an issue with my one post? It is just pathetic honestly. You have been involved in a number of posts on my posting and you have offered absolutely nothing to the conversation at all. Your posts are just a waste of space.

I actually wish people who disagree with me critique the content of my posts, outside of the fact I have in my posts the rest is opinion that isn't infallible.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I am not upset, just disappointed because personal attacks are pointless on a forum. There are people who have posted significantly longer and more numerous posts in recent pages yet people only have an issue with my one post? It is just pathetic honestly. You have been involved in a number of posts on my posting and you have offered absolutely nothing to the conversation at all. Your posts are just a waste of space.

I actually wish people who disagree with me critique the content of my posts, outside of the fact I have in my posts the rest is opinion that isn't infallible.

I just stated that you're long winded mate, and I'm hardly alone in that belief.

As for my posting, you have your right to your opinion. Plenty disagree with me. It doesn't faze me at all, and I am actually appreciative if I get to learn something.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

The issue is MSM and its bias with the Murdochracy that runs todays news and social media platforms
Politician get free reign and the MSM runs with it

I refer you to this article below
http://theconversation.com/racist-reporting-still-rife-in-australian-media-88957

Half of all race-related opinion pieces in the Australian mainstream media are likely to contravene industry codes of conduct on racism.
In research released this week, the Who Watches the Media report found that of 124 race-related opinion pieces published between January and July this year, 62 were potentially in breach of one or more industry codes of conduct, because of racist content.
Despite multiple industry codes of conduct stipulating fair race-related reporting, racist reporting is a weekly phenomenon in Australia’s mainstream media.
We define racism as unjust covert or overt behaviour towards a person or a group on the basis of their racial background. This might be perpetrated by a person, a group, an organisation, or a system.
The research, conducted by not-for-profit group All Together Now and the University of Technology Sydney, focused on opinion-based pieces in the eight Australian newspapers and current affairs programs with the largest audiences, as determined by ratings agencies.
We found that negative race-related reports were most commonly published in News Corp publications. The Daily Telegraph, The Australian and Herald Sun were responsible for the most negative pieces in the press. A Current Affair was the most negative among the broadcast media.
Chart 1: Number of race-related stories by outlet and type of reporting

Author supplied
Muslims were mentioned in more than half of the opinion pieces, and more than twice as many times as any other single group mentioned (see chart 2).
Chart 2: Number of race-related stories by outlet and ethnic minority group

Author supplied
Muslims were portrayed more negatively than the other minority groups (see chart 3), with 63% of reports about Muslims framed negatively. These pieces often conflated Muslims with terrorism. For example, reports used terrorist attacks in the UK to question accepting Muslim refugees and immigrants to Australia.
This was a recurring theme in race-based opinion pieces over the study period. In contrast, there were more positive than negative stories about Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders.
Chart 3: Number of stories by ethnic minority group and type of reporting

Author supplied
Negative commentary about minority groups has lasting impacts in the community. An op-ed in the New York Times recently highlighted the impact that racism in the media has on individuals. It explained:

…racism doesn’t have to be experienced in person to affect our health — taking it in the form of news coverage is likely to have similar effects.​

The noted effects include elevated blood pressure, long after television scenes are over. Racism is literally making us sick.
Note also that given the lack of cultural diversity among opinion-makers, particularly on television, social commentators are largely talking about groups to which they do not belong. According to the 2016-20 PwC Media Outlook report, the average media employee is 27, Caucasian and male, which does not reflect the current population diversity of Australia.
This creates a strong argument for increasing the cultural diversity of all media agencies to help minimise the number of individuals or groups being negatively depicted in race-related reports.
Our research echoes the findings of the UN expert panel on racial discrimination, which reported last week that racist media debate was on the rise in Australia. The UN recommended the Australian media “put an end to racist hate speech” in print and online, and adopt a “code of good conduct” with provisions to ban racism.
Our report makes urgent recommendations to strengthen media regulations in relation to race-based reporting, to support journalists to discuss race sensitively, and to continue media monitoring.
While media regulations enable audiences to make complaints about racism in the media, under some codes, audiences have only 30 days to do so. The research report recommends that this deadline be removed to allow audiences to make complaints about racist media content at any time. It also calls for the definition of racism be broadened in the codes of conduct to include covert forms of racism. Covert racism includes subtle stereotyping, such as the repeated depiction of Muslim women with dark veils, implying secrecy and provoking suspicion.

News agencies need to do more to help journalists address race issues responsibly. They can do this by providing training, recruiting more journalists of colour, and ensuring that their editorial policies are racially aware.
The media are meant to hold up a mirror to society. When it comes to race-related reporting, we need a more accurate portrayal of the successes of Australian multiculturalism.
Priscilla Brice and Deliana Iacoban from All Together Now, a not-for-profit group working to combat racism, also contributed to this article.



Something needs to be done as Fridays events changed the rules forever
We cant sit by and do nothing any longer

Negative does not necessarily mean inaccurate or incorrect. Take for example, this point from the study:
The negative reports showed that, over the six-month sample period, Muslims were often conflated with terrorism, thereby fueling a stereotype that ‘Muslims are terrorists’.


What do they mean by negative reports? Did they separate the concepts of threat and actual attacks (was not made implicitly clear)? Does this include attacks by ISIS/Hamas etc and the fact that some Islamic based terror groups have strong ties to extreme Islam or the fact that they committed acts of terror, often in the name of Allah? Looking at the study, they are pursuing the argument that the media are not blatantly racist, but are overusing stereotypes, which is true, but definitely not to the degree that the study states.

Looking at quite of the few media source cited, what is considered a negative report pushing stereotypes is very questionable. i.e. A CA report on Mosque Mayhem, that was about embezzlement and inner feuds within one mosque. Wasn't the greatest report in the world, but highlighted how most of the mosque goers were upset about money earmarked for community projects was being siphoned off by one of the mosque leaders. The community project part would be considered a strong positive from my perspective as not many people would be aware of Islamic community support and values. Another supposed negative report was on bigamy, there was nothing factually incorrect about it and had a picture/video of a Mormon family from Big Love at the top of the article. That article stated that it only some Muslims support it, which is generally pretty correct.


In saying all that, I agree with the vibe that the media needs an overhaul. I think the problem with the MSM runs much deeper as it senstationalises and dramatises everything to attract viewers. Most outlets have an agenda and there is definitely select sections of the media who race bait. I'm not sure racial quotas as that philosophy is tied to bull crap like white male privilege. In the end, some people hear want they want to hear in regards to news reports, irregardless of their accuracy.

 

[Val Keating]

Owens is someone who thought Hitler would have been fine if he didn't expand his policies beyond Germany, they are the same?

AOC's problem is that she is young and naive in relation to macro economics. When I was her age, or probably a bit younger, I was an idealistic socialist as well. I don't have an issue with people thinking Socialism has merit because in theory it makes sense, it just doesn't work in practice because it doesn't matter how noble the people are who fought for these principles are, when the State has too much power and it is adopting an authoritarian power shift, it is extremely vulnerable to ushering in someone who is corrupt who proceeds to hoard the wealth for themselves and their cronies and then undertake an authoritarian stance to keep power. The Estates aren't burned to the ground and the workers have never had a better quality of life under Socialism, so you have to ask where did all the wealth go? It is a redistribution of wealth, from the people who generated the wealth to the people who took the wealth by force.

That doesn't mean a mixed economy system can't have greater social policies, we are an example of how it can work and there is a lot we can do better, our taxation law makes it too easy to avoid paying tax, ATO released the data on our top corporations at the end of 2017 and 732 companies who had amassed more than $500 billion in revenue paid no tax whatsoever.

Capitalism always lives in the present, it has no regard for the future, not in any way shape or form. It is a great system to generate wealth but we need to heavily regulate it as most corporations are run by CEOs who psychologically do not stray too far from psychopaths and they can't be trusted with what is best for our society, given the means, they will send us all to Hell for the right price.

AOC is naive to believe you can squeeze more money from the wealthy, outside of the resource sector many of them can just leave. The top 10% already pay a disproportionate amount of income taxation, the top 10% fund about 90% of our income tax revenue. You will get more out of rich people if you give them tax incentives to invest money where the government would otherwise have invested the money if they could get it out of them. The more you try to take money from the rich, the more they will attempt to avoid paying tax. Tax minimisation schemes do not generate for the economy what would greater infrastructure investment or more investment in job creating businesses. Outside of entering a war-based economy, attempting to get more out of the rich has never worked and has done more harm to the economy.

Renewable energy is something worthwhile... on an individual basis. I have solar panels on my roof, they generate electricity, didn't cost much to install and after 5 or so years have probably repaid themselves, still has about 20 years to go before they would need to be replaced... I probably wont be around when that happens. However, trying to generate enough power from solar, wind, etc is just way too expensive, it is disastrous for the wildlife, wind turbines just become big bird shredders and anything that flies over a solar farm gets incinerated. Birds aren't being shot down by a death ray from my roof so I think there is a place for intelligent use of renewable power.

However, we would reach and even exceed our greenhouse emission targets by just going nuclear, we have the largest known uranium deposits in the world and in some states/territories we can't actively search for new deposits. It is estimated we probably have Thorium reserves on par with that of India, the Dutch put a Thorium salt mine reactor online late in 2017 for research purposes, ultimately Thorium reactors can't melt down as the core is already in a molten state. If the CIA could stop killing Indian nuclear scientists then that would be great, perhaps they can finish their research on their new hybrid Thorium/Uranium reactor which would burn up basically everything in the process getting much more power out of the uranium and leaving nothing to turn into bombs or toxic waste that lasts thousands of years. We could even take all the existing waste that exists and burn it in a hybrid reactor. These also can't melt down in theory.

If someone truly wants to take a stand for the environment, they would support replacing all coal based plants with nucelar reactors, even environmentalists that have pushed for green renewable energy have started to say, it is time to give up on it and go nuclear until we can improve the science behind renewable energy.



The wage gap exists, it just isn't what most people have been lead to believe. If you believe in equality of outcomes instead of equality of opportunity then it wont matter why it is different. Instead of tackling the wage gap, you first need to understand where someone sits when it comes to the definition of equality.

I think some feminist groups are well aware of how and why the gap exists, they continue to push inaccurate or misleading information and have used that as a basis to try and do things like restrict access to overtime, etc. The crusade to get the numbers to match isn't going to make men or women happier in the long-run. I think women in general have a better understanding of life balance and make better decisions when it comes to how much of their own lives they dedicate to work. I would have an extremely dim view of any organisation or ideology that basically sees me as just a number in a bid to balance out a ledger so values can come out the same. I have different desires to the next person, everyone should be free to live their life how they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else in the process.

If happiness is any gauge of success, Feminist groups that have considerable political power aren't doing a great job at making women happier. It is basically why I do not trust career politicians, especially those who attain power speaking for the downtrodden, if their only source of power is having downtrodden people, they have zero incentive to improve the life of the downtrodden, if they actually did anything then they would make themselves obsolete. If they had inadvertently already achieved their objectives then the only alternative would be to mislead and be dishonest about the status quo or change career and I don't think any of them want to get into waste management and improve the distribution of male to female employees in that industry.

I just had a chance to go back and read this, great post.

 

[Val Keating]

When you were her age were you voted into congress? No. The point is she has been thrust into a position that she wasn't ready for. If you can influence policies with such little knowledge and make so many errors it's an issue. There is learning on the job...but lets be realistic. That's the same for any politician. Politics has turned into a popularity contest (social media and a plethora of talk shows have magnified that) and with AOC she's playing every card (no borders, socialism, grew up in the bronx, female, save the planet, down with the 1%) - the masses and the uneducated eat that up. As you've pointed out there are too many holes in here arguments. The problem is she has dug in now and I don't see any effort to learn. There is also no attempt be her supporters to hold her accountable so if she makes an error (which we all do) she just goes into defence mode and it turns into a gender thing

Thank christ she's the US's problem. Sadly Australia will have a similar politician soon enough when they see how successful she will become. I look forward to a time when a Trudeau or AOC run Australia

She wouldn’t be on her own being a member of Congress that isn’t the complete package. People like her because she’s come from outside the usual oligarchy of generational wealthy politicians who are so compromised by doners & owing each other favours she can rattle the cage. The way she exposed how compromised they are by their doners was brilliant.

Hopefully being the youngest person ever to take her seat she’ll learn and become better with experience.

I mean the dude running the country has zero experience and would know even less about the law (unless it’s about being on the wrong side of it). The bloke running the country had to go to Russia for finance because no bank in America would lend him money because he never pays it back.

Who cares about a lefty rattling cages in Congress? Other then watching her make them uncomfortable.

 

[kangaspurs]

When in doubt go with the gender card...

Predictable

'Going with the gender card' is pointing out where both Owens and AOC are the same? LOL ok. You've completely misconstrued that comment.

 

[Groin guru]

She wouldn’t be on her own being a member of Congress that isn’t the complete package. People like her because she’s come from outside the usual oligarchy of generational wealthy politicians who are so compromised by doners & owing each other favours she can rattle the cage. The way she exposed how compromised they are by their doners was brilliant.

Hopefully being the youngest person ever to take her seat she’ll learn and become better with experience.

I mean the dude running the country has zero experience and would know even less about the law (unless it’s about being on the wrong side of it). The bloke running the country had to go to Russia for finance because no bank in America would lend him money because he never pays it back.

Who cares about a lefty rattling cages in Congress? Other then watching her make them uncomfortable.

Stay "informed"

 

[muttley45]

Probably be unpopular with some, but i reckon the recent event in NZ is a fair argument for the introduction of Capital Punishment.

 

[Val Keating]

This from a couple of days ago



It’s beautiful. Get around it.

 

[Val Keating]

Probably be unpopular with some, but i reckon the recent event in NZ is a fair argument for the introduction of Capital Punishment.

100% agree, and their organs should be taken and given to people who need transplants to live.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Probably be unpopular with some, but i reckon the recent event in NZ is a fair argument for the introduction of Capital Punishment.

Not as unpopular as you may think. You have a bit of support in the aftermath of the shootings.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

This from a couple of days ago



It’s beautiful. Get around it.

It's beautiful. Get around it.

AOC logic:
I borrow money to buy a car. The bank financed my car. Hypothetically, if i crash said car causing a injury or damage, the bank has to pay, as it is responsible for said damage.

 

[Val Keating]

It's beautiful. Get around it.

AOC logic:
I borrow money to buy a car. The bank financed my car. Hypothetically, if i crash said car causing a injury or damage, the bank has to pay, as it is responsible for said damage.

Wells Fargo is a disgusting bank that should’ve been bankrupted by causing the GFC. Instead they were paid out and the people lost out. They’d fund mass murder if there was a profit to be made. Oh wait....

Don’t you think they should be held accountable for where they invest their money?

 

[Tas]

When you were her age were you voted into congress? No. The point is she has been thrust into a position that she wasn't ready for.

Was I? No, I am not American.

Is anyone ready for public office when they are first appointed? It is important to know your strengths and weaknesses, I am sure she wasn't elected on the basis of her economic knowledge or experience. You would have to question the people she has around her that let her come out with the Green New Deal.

If you can influence policies with such little knowledge and make so many errors it's an issue.

Politics is a popularity contest. The Conservative Book Club rates Ronald Reagan as the best conservative president in the history of US politics and he was an actor who attended a liberal arts school where he was a C grade majoring in economics and sociology. He at least had some time as the governor of California so wasn't green in terms of politics, however, it is less about the individual and more about the team when it comes to politics. AOC needs a better team around her. Reagan's experience acting was more influential to getting elected than anything else.

There is learning on the job...but lets be realistic. That's the same for any politician. Politics has turned into a popularity contest (social media and a plethora of talk shows have magnified that) and with AOC she's playing every card (no borders, socialism, grew up in the bronx, female, save the planet, down with the 1%) - the masses and the uneducated eat that up. As you've pointed out there are too many holes in here arguments. The problem is she has dug in now and I don't see any effort to learn. There is also no attempt be her supporters to hold her accountable so if she makes an error (which we all do) she just goes into defence mode and it turns into a gender thing

It has always been a popularity contest from the inception of democracy.

Thank christ she's the US's problem. Sadly Australia will have a similar politician soon enough when they see how successful she will become. I look forward to a time when a Trudeau or AOC run Australia

There is nothing wrong with being an ideologue as long as you are rooted in reality, Paul Keating was elected in a federal seat at the age of 25, he didn't even finish high school, he was responsible for ushering in the greatest economic reform in the history of the nation and laid the groundwork for what we are benefiting form today.

AOC will have to mature a lot to make it to president, at this point in the last election wasn't Jeb Bush a mile in front? It is too early to say, if she can't reign in the foot-in-mouth antics she isn't going to make it. I think she has some refreshing ideas which if tempered with reality would be good for the united states, however, if she remained mired in idealism and fantasy then she wont make it.

For all of Trudeau's rhetoric, it is just an illusion, where it matters he has put aside morals and ethics for what is in Canada's best interest, AOC doesn't strike me to be in the same league at present which will make it hard for her to get the support of the majority of corporate DNC sellouts.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Wells Fargo is a disgusting bank that should’ve been bankrupted by causing the GFC. Instead they were paid out and the people lost out. They’d fund mass murder if there was a profit to be made. Oh wait....

Don’t you think they should be held accountable for where they invest their money?

They can supply bank loans to just about anyone they like as long as the person/company receiving the loan shows the capacity to pay it back and they are in full compliance with corporate law. It is not up to you, me or AOC to manage loans as they are not handling your's, mine's or AOC's money.

 

[Tas]

Probably be unpopular with some, but i reckon the recent event in NZ is a fair argument for the introduction of Capital Punishment.

It is hard to say, if there was the death penalty in place he probably would taken even more lives and then shot it out with police before going down or taking his own life. The death penalty has never been a deterrent where it exists.

 

[Val Keating]

They can supply bank loans to just about anyone they like as long as the person/company receiving the loan shows the capacity to pay it back and they are in full compliance with corporate law. It is not up to you, me or AOC to manage loans. As long as they are not loaning to hostile foreign government or other hostile actors or people who cannot pay their loans back, I couldn't give two shits who they loan to as it not my money they are investing. If it isn't Wells Fargo, it'll be another company to follow in their wake.

So who should pay to clean up the companies mess which came with huge environmental & financial loss? The taxpayers? The companies can’t afford it, so if they were forced to clean it up without help they’d go under and the bank wouldn’t receive the return on their investment. Pretty obvious the point she was making, time and time again these big businesses along with their big banks get bailed out by the average person paying thier taxes. Shit the average person would probably pay more tax then Wells Fargo.

 

[muttley45]

It is hard to say, if there was the death penalty in place he probably would taken even more lives and then shot it out with police before going down or taking his own life. The death penalty has never been a deterrent where it exists.

Wasn't actually thinking of the deterrent side of it, more like an appropriate punishment for a despicable crime.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

So who should pay to clean up the companies mess which came with huge environmental & financial loss? The taxpayers? The companies can’t afford it, so if they were forced to clean it up without help they’d go under and the bank wouldn’t receive the return on their investment. Pretty obvious the point she was making, time and time again these big businesses along with their big banks get bailed out by the average person paying thier taxes. Shit the average person would probably pay more tax then Wells Fargo.

I believe that we will never agree on her, so let’s agree to disagree from now on when it comes to AOC.

I did write a long response to your points, but i deleted it out of sake of I am sick of writing about politics.

 

[Event Horizon]

So you value his constant iterations across multiple threads about the North Melbourne Football Club being overtaken by political activists in some sort of bizarre conspiracy (hint: it's just society's moral progress, no conspiracy), and his constant claim to entitlement to his club? You value his direct attack on Ben Brown for merely speaking out about equal rights? You value his repeated bleatings that women have no right to play footy at AFL level?

I usually like your postings kaboom, but this one's got me a bit confused. Sure there's value in lively internet forum conversation - absolutely. But racism and sexism and any other kind of discrimination or hate speech, and I don't care how veiled or subtle it may be, needs to be called out. Every time. Yesterday saw 49 innocent people gunned down by a white supremacist simply because of their faith. That was a catastrophic, horrific, immense act of hatred. Supported in its aftermath by the facebook posts of thousands, which is sadly telling. I don't care how small or how veiled or how hidden - you call it out. Because acts of hatred like what happened yesterday grow from a culture of long-term and widespread tolerance of it at smaller levels.

So lively discussion, sure. Tolerance of discrimination and hate speech over and over again? Nope.

It's because of so called "society moral progress" that we can't even say a harmless joke anymore, nor can a woman expect to receive a compliment at work for wearing a nice dress, nor can one even express their view on the web forum without being called a bigot by those who don't even know what the word means.

There is a difference between not accepting racism, to being a politically correct organization that forgets its purpose in society, which is to bring people together by winning games of football!

I recall total strangers in blue and white gear of all races and colours hugging each other at the MCG on the 28th of September 1996, followed by sheer ecstasy at Arden St, where nobody dressed in our colours would feel unwelcome, and I say that as someone who'd only been in the country for 6 years at the time.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Probably be unpopular with some, but i reckon the recent event in NZ is a fair argument for the introduction of Capital Punishment.

No mate. Look at your average politician, get a grasp of the constitutional realities of law in this country, then think this through a bit more.

 

[big_e]

When you were her age were you voted into congress? No. The point is she has been thrust into a position that she wasn't ready for. If you can influence policies with such little knowledge and make so many errors it's an issue. There is learning on the job...but lets be realistic. That's the same for any politician. Politics has turned into a popularity contest (social media and a plethora of talk shows have magnified that) and with AOC she's playing every card (no borders, socialism, grew up in the bronx, female, save the planet, down with the 1%) - the masses and the uneducated eat that up. As you've pointed out there are too many holes in here arguments. The problem is she has dug in now and I don't see any effort to learn. There is also no attempt be her supporters to hold her accountable so if she makes an error (which we all do) she just goes into defence mode and it turns into a gender thing

Thank christ she's the US's problem. Sadly Australia will have a similar politician soon enough when they see how successful she will become. I look forward to a time when a Trudeau or AOC run Australia

On the age thing...

Age when first elected to Parliament:

Winston Churchill: 26
Paul Keating: 25
Franklin Roosevelt: 28
Jacinda Ardern: 28
John F Kennedy: 29
George Washington: 26
Tony Blair: 30

AOC: 29

 

[Val Keating]

I feel we will never agree on her, so let’s agree to disagree from now on when it comes to AOC.

As for the other stuff, I’ll just finish off with a few points:
Those mean companies always get away with everything when it comes to environmental losses, o wait...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...d4870a079da_story.html?utm_term=.085acf3424e2
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-14/mining-rehabilitation-laws-qld-blocks-rti-requests/10230432

Not to mention the extensive environmental studies that are legally required to be conducted, before, during and after any new operation or facility. In addition, extensive rehabilitation work is required afterwards, otherwise companies get hit bad. Corporate responsbility in third world countries is shitful, but not so much in the Western world.

As for the GFC, that is actually more in line with FDR-like policies and left-leaning and centrist governments pumping in public funds to prop up banks and promote economic stability in unsure times.

As a general rule with taxes: https://www.cnbc.com/id/44864520 and https://csimarket.com/stocks/singleProfitabilityRatiosy.php?code=WFC&itx.

Tax rates are higher for businesses and as Tas noted earlier, the rich pay the bulk of income tax.


Not it wasn't. The point she was making that seem a company was supplying business loans to companies involved with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that they are effectively liable for the actions of those companies. It had zero to do with corporate responsibility and more to do with her war on ICE.

Maybe my opinion on Wells Fargo is biased because one of the podcasts I listen to did an episode on them recently. A lot of the people in the upper echelon of that company should be in jail, instead they got huge retirement funds.